why exactly? You at least think more highly of me than I do of you._________________"We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.” Martin Luther King

I thought that was a very good performance. I don't think he put a foot wrong, and was very lucid and quick to shoehorn a great deal of fact into the interview in a short time.
The even-handed treatment from the host was an unexpected bonus on a Murdoch outlet.

THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!

Course it's not evidence. As I've said repeatedly (and you've mentioned) I don't feel there's enough evidence to support any theory on what happened to the planes.

Evidence of the aircraft not being scheduled, or no hijackers on board is (at best) a contradiction to other available evidence, if more conclusive evidence of their non-existence were available then the next logical step would be to expect that other aircraft were used. As you rightly point out, having looked at the visual evidence (-none-) I'm certain that NPT is a crock of dogs fiddlybits, which naturally makes me doubt the quality of any evidence used in NPT arguments.

But the guy speaks the truth as he sees it, and I have to say that in all his years of whistleblowing he hasn't been pulled up factually yet.

Apart from on Pam Am flight 103...

Very true......

I have enjoyed this thread!!
One final comment. How exactly has Shayler been proved wrong about this? A Libyan IO has been convicted for the Lockerbie attack.

It amazes me that two such dedicated truth seekers have fallen for this particular lie. Please read my book (it's in libraries, you don't have to buy it), which shows in detail the way in which this particular CT has evolved.

Annie

Annie,

Whilst I am really thankful for the work you and David have done for the latter stages of the UK 9/11 investigation agenda, for me and many other Pam Am 103 will remain the achilles heel of your research, investigation and dedication to the wider issues at work.

It's not about one conspiracy versus another it's about the vast amounts of evidence that suggests events such as these have other agendas at work. David's line that "MI6 started the conspiracy theories" may be partially true but not wholly for the reasons both of you give [and I've read the Lockerbie parts of Spies, Lies and Whistleblowers]. Here's the flaw as I see it: Just because Iran was supposedly being framed after the event doesn't negate the masses of data and testimony we've had about

THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!

Course it's not evidence. As I've said repeatedly (and you've mentioned) I don't feel there's enough evidence to support any theory on what happened to the planes.

Evidence of the aircraft not being scheduled, or no hijackers on board is (at best) a contradiction to other available evidence, if more conclusive evidence of their non-existence were available then the next logical step would be to expect that other aircraft were used. As you rightly point out, having looked at the visual evidence (-none-) I'm certain that NPT is a crock of dogs fiddlybits, which naturally makes me doubt the quality of any evidence used in NPT arguments.

That reminds me... still waiting for NPT's best evidence...

Putting on my wellies and plungng into the murky regions of NPT /no NPT,
it is a subject on which I do not have any contribution to make other than to note that BOTH stances require some degree of suspension of disbelief. Which explains my confusion.

For the record I am most inclined to the no 7x7s at the WTC position, but I am open to persuasion on other views. What I do think is important, and here I agree with Andy and Ian Neal, is that we don't let this issue become our identifying feature , or we shall be made to look like an argumentative clique.

In saying that I will sit firmly on the fence again and support Andrew in his defence of open , honest debate. In other words, let's talk, not quarrel, but let' s not let forget that there are other aspects of 9/11 , such as the demise of Building Seven , where we are on much stronger ground.

Sh*t! Another very public straw man, I'm beggining to believe ANYBODY who you might find appearing on a mainstream programme discussing conspiracies, is a disinfo agent.
I've had a great deal of respect for David Shayler throughout his carreer as a whistle blower, and in a way the first twenty minutes of this interveiw is the best performance he's ever given, being very lucid and addressing all the points given made suctsinctly and articulately (almost although it was scripted)
The very fact the news caster allows and encourages this debate on fake terror (when the real topic is meant to be the libvanyenko assasination) is suspicious, as when David Icke appeared on this morning and started giving info on this topic, he was steered into his reptillian theoreys, to avoid and discredit the nuts and bolts 9/11 facts.
The same thing is done at the end of this interveiw, after all the right on, on the level research is disclosed, he drops a big turd in there (with a cheeky smirk) that planes didn't even hit the towers. He didn't need to say this, as he had just been able to speak for 20mins and give lots of credible verifyable research 9/11 7/7,
I don't know where this No planes theorey came from, but it seems like a few have been sucked in by it (or have adopted it to divide and scupper the truth campaign).
There is some synchronisity here as I was just listening this morning to the Jeff Rense show with william rodriguez (caretaker at WTC who helped firfighters access the stairwells) and this is where I first heard of this no-planes theorey William had to break ranks with jimmy water and his reopen911.org because or their endorsement of this ludicious idea.
It was just after hearing this on the show that I logged on here and read this tread and watched the shayler interveiw, we have to be aware that may of these public personalities and organisations, might well be controlled entities to misguide and divide the opinions of their supporters.
For me the same suspicions have fallen upon David Icke, for his involvement in this brandon corey storey fuc-u-mentary farce, it seems to me there is a series of constant attacks being made upon the overall truth movements, and that the presumed leaders and spokespeople for the alternative veiw are intimately involved in this dis-info.
All I'm waiting for now is for alex Jones to put his foot in his mouth.

So you think David Shayler is a Straw Man and a disinfo agent - presumably you think he is therefore still on the payroll of MI5?

You say that the no planes theory is ludicrous, so do you also think that the official Hijackers theory is ludicrous? - if you do then what do you believe happenened and why do you not think that your theory is less ludicrous than the other two.

What's up commanderson are you lost for words?

I'm just not online all the time dude!
just reading through all the posts now ahhll get back to you, dinnae worry, Ah just find it mighty suspictious that the best breakdown of the evidence for government envolvement in 9/11, on a mainstream news programme ends with the self debunking theorey of NO PLANES! Hmmm
the very fact this discussion is encouraged by the news caster, on a show thats meant to be about Libvanyenko and a moon landing is mighty suspect

that interview was going really well.. i was really pleased. I hoped the npt comment early on would be the only one made during the interview as david handled it well ('watch the video in slow motion and draw your own conclusions') and although I felt slightly uneasy, the debate didn't indulge on the issue at this point, so i was happy...
................................................................
Whether you are a noplaner or a plane hugger.. the public aren't ready to consider the no planes stuff, and they don't have to!! There's plenty of other evidence which is much more credible,involves a lot less speculation and far fewer variables. There was sooo much progress made in that interview before the end imo.. Personally I think it would benefit the 'movement' massively if people who appear credible (like david) don't juxtapose such highly speculative theories with credible evidence.

this is exactly it Timmy, there was no need for shayler to go down the no planes route, he brought it up himself, right at the end unneccesarliy, when he'll realise how crazy it'll sound to joe public (well anyone with any common sense) thats why I think he's trying to scupper the truth campaign SHAYLER IN MY EYES IS NOW A STRAW MAN!

that interview was going really well.. i was really pleased. I hoped the npt comment early on would be the only one made during the interview as david handled it well ('watch the video in slow motion and draw your own conclusions') and although I felt slightly uneasy, the debate didn't indulge on the issue at this point, so i was happy...
................................................................
Whether you are a noplaner or a plane hugger.. the public aren't ready to consider the no planes stuff, and they don't have to!! There's plenty of other evidence which is much more credible,involves a lot less speculation and far fewer variables. There was sooo much progress made in that interview before the end imo.. Personally I think it would benefit the 'movement' massively if people who appear credible (like david) don't juxtapose such highly speculative theories with credible evidence.

this is exactly it Timmy, there was no need for shayler to go down the no planes route, he brought it up himself, right at the end unneccesarliy, when he'll realise how crazy it'll sound to joe public (well anyone with any common sense) thats why I think he's trying to scupper the truth campaign SHAYLER IN MY EYES IS NOW A STRAW MAN!

I would rather have Joe Public hearing what you call crazy theories (WHAT'S YOUR IF YOU WERE ASKED?) than not hearing anything at all - hopefully we will get thousands of more truthers as a result

it is not our responsibility to provide a narrative of exactly what (we think) happened

the majority of the public still believe the official story, if we can show that it is false it will develop enough anger/ interest to create a context in which all these theories can be proved/ disproved

the point is we don't know what happened on 9/11, none of us should be so arrogant as to assert that we do - what we do know is that we have not been told the truth, only by showing the inadequacy of the official story to the public can we move forward

The interviewer says - "well Timmy you think 911 was an inside job and you say it was not Mohammad Atta and co flying those planes - well just who was?"

What would you say?

i would speculate that the planes were remote controlled. i would make it clear i was speculating and that further investigation was required in order to conclude anything

Well if you came out with remote controlled on tv - there would be just as much disbelief as no planes

Don't be daft setus3!
Remote control is well known to people, most planes do most of there flying by computer guidance, people can undrestand this, also the notion there may have been beakons in the buildings guiding them to the impact points, the notion that the planes were switched, and those weren't passenger jets (thereis eye witness testimony to this) all quite tangeible credible material for people to digest.
But that there were no planes, and all we saw was computer imagery (presumably with a hologam display to convince the thousands who saw it first hand in New york, oh along with convincing sound effects for everyone belted out over new york) and that they shipped in wreckage including engines for display. This to even the most fanciful theorist (and I consider myself one) is complete idiocy, no planers have gotta be no brainers, and there is no need for this argument to fill out any of the events on 9/11.
So why does david mention it?

It was good work at the start but I failed to see any trap set by the interviewer. Dave mentioned it may not be planes without being led that way, the interviewer didn't really pick it up and then he mentioned it again near the end, once again without being led but this time it got picked up. After the New Statesmen article it would have been wiser to steer clear. Operation Northwoods, Able Danger, War Games, ISI's money wire to Atta, the put options, etc would have provided so much more impact.

Thankyou Andy, I saw it the same way, no trap set for David, he just jumped in to the no plane pit all by himself WHY?
Even if he takes this ridiculious stance himself, why scupper the great job he'd just done on national TV with a theorey that he knows will have him labeled a nut.

All the "evidence" you quote back at me comes from the PR offensive in the mid-1990s, particularly the Maltese Double Cross programme, commissioned by the Libyans via a UK PR company. Dave was head of the Libyan section at the time this came out, he had to go through all the intelligence and all the evidence on file in order to provide an assessment of whether it was true. And it was not - just a very clever narrative full of elisions and ommissions, a bit like the 911 Report.

Perhaps we should try and get him to do a meeting about it one of these days. It would be a good debate, and perhaps useful to the movement as a whole, as it would highlight how CTs, both official and unofficial, are formulated.

And I wasn't trying to patronise you, Ally, so sorry if it sounded that way. I know you've been at the 911 game far longer than Dave and me. Perhaps you would extend the same understanding to Dave and me when we talk about the MI5 stuff??

Regards

Annie_________________All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing - Edmund Burke.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem Americanam appellant - Tacitus Redactus.

Well if you came out with remote controlled on tv - there would be just as much disbelief as no planes

Well at least we have proof of remote control planes. I'm still waiting for the No Planers to address the evidence question. Andrew said he wanted to discuss is yet hasn't addressed the question form John White about the strongest evidence for this theory.

The official figures from the Bureau of Transportation statistics indicate that neither AA 11 nor AA 77 flew on Sept, 11 2001. This solves the question of what happened to them. Nothing. Because the flights did not exist. This is consistent with other evidence which shows that they were not the objects responsible for the Pentagon and Nth WTC tower incidents.

Thats the strongest evidence that what everyone saw and heard in new york was a hollographic display! wouldn't a plane switch account for this? which I believe is already part of the official conspiracy narative.

Even if he takes this ridiculious stance himself, why scupper the great job he'd just done on national TV with a theorey that he knows will have him labeled a nut.

We all get so lost in the little arguments about what happened that day, we lose sight of the fact that most of the general public label us ALL nuts for even questioning the official account of 911.

Dave has spent years fighting for justice for innocent Libyans who were murdered, for innocent people still being held in prison in the UK, and for all of us who have our privacy illegally invaded by the spooks.

Just by questioning the official 911 CT, he has risked his credibility as a whistleblower, and probably killed forever any chance of an enquiry into the Gadaffi Plot. So having a go at him for mentioning one area of research about 911, after doing such a great job of getting the other evidence out to a large audience seems a little questionable, to say the least._________________All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing - Edmund Burke.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem Americanam appellant - Tacitus Redactus.

Right everyone, what's the verdict on Andyb's suggestion that he include comments about all this on Dave's show tonight?

Calls are impossible, I'm afraid, because there's only one phone line, but no computer to line up callers, like you get at most radio sations, and no staff to sort it out anyway._________________All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing - Edmund Burke.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem Americanam appellant - Tacitus Redactus.

Annie
Would you please ask David to respond here, as to why he chose to introduce the no planes theorey in an interveiw, where he's up to that point had managed to giva alot of very credible verifyable evidence on the conspiracy . I and I'm sure many others have had a lot of resect for what you and David have been seen to do over the last decade or so, but this point may well desroy Davids credabilty with me, and I'm sure with others too, if it is not addressed. If he would explain firstly WHY he believes there were no planes, and secondly why he chose to bring it up, that might be helpful. Many seem to contend that regardless of the no planes comment many may well have been enlightened by what he got to say on sky news, I would say that just as many if not more will hear no more of conspiracy because these conspiracy nuts believe it was a hollographic display.
Shayler may suffer the same fate as Icke with me, as he refused to respond to the calls to explain his involvement with the obvious disinfo of truthseekertv and the brandon corey storey.
So please if you guys are legit have David address this, i'd be interested to listen to his show if you might give link to where I can find it on the web, maybe he could explain himself there too
regards

Even if he takes this ridiculious stance himself, why scupper the great job he'd just done on national TV with a theorey that he knows will have him labeled a nut.

We all get so lost in the little arguments about what happened that day, we lose sight of the fact that most of the general public label us ALL nuts for even questioning the official account of 911.

Dave has spent years fighting for justice for innocent Libyans who were murdered, for innocent people still being held in prison in the UK, and for all of us who have our privacy illegally invaded by the spooks.

Just by questioning the official 911 CT, he has risked his credibility as a whistleblower, and probably killed forever any chance of an enquiry into the Gadaffi Plot. So having a go at him for mentioning one area of research about 911, after doing such a great job of getting the other evidence out to a large audience seems a little questionable, to say the least.

I think you underestimate the intelligence of the general pubic, many may be in denial, but reasoned rational theoreys backed up by verifyable evidence will sway many to the truth, 'weirdo' unsubstancuated claims will give them a reason to turn off to the whole notion of conspiracy.

I can ask Dave to address these issues on the forum, but he usually steers clear of it. He always says that he'd rather spend his time "preaching to the unconverted" rather than to those who are already interested in 911, and this he does indefatigably.

As for the show, I've already asked twice what people on the forum think: should he raise it on the show , thereby highlighting the whole issue all over again, or just move on from it? Andyb said he would take any questions people post here for Dave into the studio.

What do people think??

Regards

Annie_________________All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing - Edmund Burke.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem Americanam appellant - Tacitus Redactus.

I can ask Dave to address these issues on the forum, but he usually steers clear of it. He always says that he'd rather spend his time "preaching to the unconverted" rather than to those who are already interested in 911, and this he does indefatigably.

As for the show, I've already asked twice what people on the forum think: should he raise it on the show , thereby highlighting the whole issue all over again, or just move on from it? Andyb said he would take any questions people post here for Dave into the studio.

What do people think??

Regards

Annie

Hi annie
I really don't want to start slinging muck at everyone I disagree with, and calling David a cointel-pro agent for talking about the no planes stuff. But you (and david) have gotta understand that us here in the conspiracy theorey community (If we can call it that) are a suspicious bunch, especially of those promoting our theories in the mainstream media, and more especially when a big turd like the no planes theorey is laid atop our tasty stew of solid facts and reasoned research.
This is why I would disagree with skeptic and ask David to directly address his no planes ideas on his radio show, explain why he believes this, and further ask why he slung it on at the end of an interveiw where he'd managed to get out alot of reasoned fact and theoery out.
You say David prefers to preach to the unconverted, presumably to clue them up, but if he's gonna preach poison like NPT he's gotta expect a backlash from free thinkers who have been aware for years that 9/11 was an inside job, and have looked into the details of this event intimately.
Further he's gotta realise that preaching this as his theorey of what really happened is gonna keep much of his audience thouroughly unconverted, and if he wanted to convince the masses that 9/11 was an inside job he should stick to the nuts and bolts of drills, norad stand down, hijackers alive, controlled demolition, al CIAda, and all those other good teflon arguments.
Surely it would not be too much to ask for him to put down some words to us converted about his controverial interpretation of the conspiracy, otherwise in the interest of keeping the truth movement real, you will find that many of us telling anyone that trys to call us no planers- for believing in an inside job- that this interpretation is a strawman argument created to discredit the truth movement and is only peddaled by Military intellegence moles.
Another thing about you guys that makes me suspicious, is your latecoming to revelations about 9/11, with all your insider knowledge on how the brits and americans worked with Al Qaeda, why were you not right there blowing the whistle from the start with all the other truth campaigners? The evidence has been around for years, and your presence in the media would have been much more useful before now???
When did you begin to think 9/11 was an inside job? And what was your path to revalation?
yours suspiciously commander

Interesting to see how this topic has exploded when an opportunity to divide the UK 911 truth movement presents itsself - take a good look at which users wade in to back up the no planes theory.

The no planes theory is something only silly or bad people discuss in public for three reasons:

1. it is utter nonsense - the planes were heard, seen and filmed. The 'evidence' is based on one of several non-technical interpretations of a few frames of one video taken of the second aircraft's impact. The same phenomenon - which could be manipulated video - doesn't appear on the other films. What do you say when William Rodriguez tells you there were planes? Okay - you just hang your head and shut up about it. Have a bit of respect.
2. If by some incredible chance - shall we say 1:1000000000 there were no planes this is never going to help us convince anybody in 1000 years to take our movement seriously - so, yes - even if it is by some amazing, fracture of reality, true, it should not be mentioned.
3. It is not difficult to see that this issue is being used - quite successfully - to confuse, divide and rule good people and to get them very annoyed!

Apologies for my earlier post which assumed Dave had talked about 'no planes' becuause I had not actually seen the video! Can't trust some forums, and I'm a moderator what hope is there for us!

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum